I'm proposing that in the case of unplanned pregnancy it should be that both the man, and the woman involved are required to give consent before an abortion, assuming the woman is not at unusual risk of bodily harm and that everything including the decision to abort need be consensual, by moral obligation with legal backing.

Legally, Mom and Dad both need to sign the papers, unless Mom has something extraordinary circumstance that significantly increases her risk during pregnancy and its affects, in which case it should be her choice alone.

This is not a Choice vs Life debate. You must maintain a Pro-Choice view to argue how the choice should (not) be carried out. As said before, everything is consensual in these circumstances up to the point we are debating, so there is nothing like rape, or assault involved for simplification.

As we may be entering the realm of what if's I will ask that we keep any that come within reason. Obviously there are large amounts of practical and legal aspects that would need to be addressed to make the law theoretically just and uncontradictory. I will do my best to address what comes.

First round: Acceptance.
Second round: Define the basis of your stance.
Third: Rebuttal
Fourth: Final elaboration and closing

Over the course of the majority of human history this debate was nonexistent. Reliable abortion was not invented until the 20th century, and has been accepted by the majority in office that it is the inalienable right of a woman to do as she chooses with her body, and to therefore do as she chooses with the inhabitant inside, as they affect her body, and her body alone. This is considered acceptable so long as the future child is not considered to have rights of their own affected by the mother.

I do not intend to belittle a woman"s right to do as she chooses with her body, but to show that it is not her body alone that is affected, on the basis that the creation inside of her is not only hers, and was created through voluntary process, with knowledge of the risks and potential consequences.

Currently pregnancy is legally considered nothing more than a medical condition until a certain amount of weeks pass and the woman is deemed to be something of great enough significance to be granted human rights. Now if the woman decides to keep the baby up to the legal time limit of abortion, and changes her mind, it"s too late. She has naturally contracted herself to the remainder of the pregnancy, and must take responsibility for her actions, and lack thereof, or face legal penalty. We can justify this, since she had full knowledge of her rights, and voluntarily chose to put off getting the abortion, and she is not the only one affected anymore.

But was she ever the only one affected to begin with? No, because the story goes farther back than this, to before the moment of conception. In my country (America), every form of contraception is labelled with the chance of success at avoiding pregnancy. They typically range from 90% for some methods to 99% for more reliable methods, like "the pill". It is commonly known among adults, that the only way to avoid pregnancy with utmost certainty is to avoid vaginal penetration. Therefore, if both parties consensually agree to allow such an event to happen, they are in implicit agreement that they are willing to accept any consequences that may arise, like possible STD"s, or pregnancy etc" It should then be assumed that both parties should already have a course of action that they plan on taking in the case that one of these possible, universally known consequences were to arise.

So these two parents read the rules, decided to play the game together, then proceeded to roll the two dice of pleasure, and lost". Now what?

Here is a basic break down of our current system.
Mom says Abort
1.The father is forced to agree.
a.The father was not strongly opposed to begin with, but was willing to raise the child.
b.The father has deep set values against abortion and will be haunted for breaking them.
c.The father fully agreed the entire time anyway, and has dodged the bullet of parenthood

Mom says Keep
2.The father is forced to agree
a.The father will come around eventually and help raise the child.
b.The father will have to pay child support.
c.Both parents consent to give the baby up for adoption.

Now as we can clearly see from options 1a, 1b, 1c, 2a, and 2b, the father has absolutely no input on whether to keep the child. Whether or not he is willing to bear the load of parenthood for the rest of his life he has absolutely no input at all, despite the entire series of events leading up to this being entirely equal in responsibility, and despite the fetus being of equal result from both parents. 1 Egg, 1 sperm. Mom and dad undoubtedly share the child. This is the problem we have to address and it is not an easy one, since neither the man nor the woman has done anything wrong, but is now facing the natural consequence of pregnancy, of which the woman undoubtedly carries the greater load with a nature that we cannot treat people ourselves. Nature is indeed unjust, and if not for that I believe there would be no debate at all. However, here we are so back to the topic at hand.

Earlier I established that there is a moral point at which the woman has already decided her actions as she has a right to do by legal time limit at which an abortion can be permitted. I propose that this right be shared equally by the man and the woman, but how can we justify this?

How can the man possibly decide that the future child is worth more than her 9+ months of pregnancy?
Well, the partners can"t possibly weigh his willingness and need to keep the child, against her unwillingness to keep it, unless they ask each other. It is their responsibility as moral human beings to do this ahead of time, and as such should be legally mandated in some shape or form. After all, if the consequences of sex are not mutually understood, then how could it have ever been consensual in the first place?

A man and woman should not have sex without understanding of the potential consequences of their actions. Now I"m not saying you have to read people the Miranda rights, and ruin the moment. I"m saying that under this mentality, it would be possible to say that if you consent to have sex, you consent to the equal right to make the decision with no greater power then your partner, whether they be a man or a woman.

But that"s not fair! Women have more to lose.

This goes back to what I said before.
"Well, the partners can"t possibly weigh his willingness and need to keep the child, against her unwillingness to keep it, unless they ask each other." When the partners consent to have sex, Dad already needs to accept that he might have to raise a child, pay child support, or watch mom abort, and I believe he should also be legally (morally) obligated to support the pregnancy as well. I am simply stating that Mom needs to consent as well, that she may have to endure pregnancy, and either raise the child or pay child support if appropriate, OR, she can always protect her body by refusing to have sex, just as men have had the obligation to do for some time. We can"t make pregnancy fair, but we can at least make the system that leads to it fair.

I am only going to follow up with this. My personal view is that it is her choice. My stance on religion and values is that others' views are that there is no choice. I believe constitutionally (America) it is our duty to protect the rights of everyone. The right of one person should not infringe upon the right of another. That is amendment #9, and it is a statement I agree with. The only way I see of ensuring both the woman"s right to protect her body and both partners right to live according to their own system (religion), and pursue happiness (child) is to make the decision to abort, let live, talk about it later etc, done prior to the decision to".you know, consent.

In 1973, the landmark Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade stated that gave a woman the right to choose to have an abortion. Nothing in the case says anything about the women's partner, but rather that it was the women's private decision, protected by the 14th Amendment. The right to an abortion, thus, belongs to the woman only, the one who has to bear the pregancy. It is her body, and under the 14th Amendment, only she can decide what she wants to do with it. She should not be denied an abortion because the partner does not consent to one.

Only a woman can make the decision of what to do with her own body. When abortion is legal, a fetus can not viable, meaning it cannot survive without the mother's support, and in that case the fetus is not its own entity, meaning that it is a part of the woman's body. It is not moral or Constitutional for a man to have any say in what should happen to her. The fetus (when abortion is legal) is not a child, which has two legal guardians, but instead a part of her body. And a body only has one legal guardian, and that is whoever owns that body.

Another point I will make is how custody laws work in the U.S. Now, I have just said that the fetus is not a child, but if you truly believe it to be one, then abortion should still not be consensual. Child custody is typically granted to the parent that is deemed to have the best relationship with the child as well as having the best jurisdiction to decide what is right for the child. A man has no relationship with a fetus inside a womb other than the fact that it is his biologically his. He may feel a slight emotional connection to it, but it is nothing compared to the connection a woman has with the developing child. She lives with it inside her. She must change her behavior significantly to favor the fetus. Clearly a pregnant woman has closer ties with it than the man. Furthermore, how can the man decide what is right for the child when he does not feel it or live with it? The pregnant woman would obviously understand the fetus better than the man.So then, under typical child custody laws, the woman would be granted sole custody and thus would make all decisions regarding it, including an abortion.

The young fetus is not viable. It is not its own entity. It is a part of the woman, and under law (and basic privacy rights) the woman only would make the decision on an abortion.

If you consider the fetus a child (which it is not), then the woman would still make all decisions for it because she would have custody over it.

After reviewing the 1973 Supreme Court case Roe V Wade, we can conclude women have protection from the state by the 14th amendment to do with their body as they deem fit by right of privacy. You worded it very accurately. Ultimately the case was won because at best the state had a strong interest in the prospect of life, and a strong interest cannot simply override the rights of a human being.

This case cannot be used in a common law argument since the circumstances are entirely different. A state has no rights, only laws, and the duty to protect our human rights, which is the context I have built my argument off of. Men have rights. Only the woman can decide what to do with her body, until her decisions begin to affect the rights of another human being, which is the reason we have a time limit on abortion with respect to the stage of pregnancy. My argument is for protection of men’s rights, not infringement on women’s rights by state, and therefore is unaffected by the ruling, and fully compatible.

Though the ruling can’t be used for Con’s argument I respect that there are arguments within the case that could be repurposed, such as a woman’s right to privacy. Earlier I stated that “Mom and Dad undoubtedly share the child”. The term “undoubtedly”, undoubtedly seems inappropriate since under the current legal system one could infer that the governing powers in this country consider the fetus to belong to the woman alone. I have proposed an arguably progressive change in mentality that since the fetus has its own blood, and unique genetic make-up, and was created by both parents equally, both share the right to privacy regarding the outcome of the fetus’s future, but cannot constitutionally overrule the other’s belief that the fetus indeed has a human soul or something of equivalent significance, no matter the definition of the state. – 9th Amendment

“Well, the partners can’t possibly weigh his willingness and need to keep the child, against her unwillingness to keep it, unless they ask each other. It is their responsibility as moral human beings to do this ahead of time, and as such should be legally mandated in some shape or form. After all, if the consequences of sex are not mutually understood, then how could it have ever been consensual in the first place?”

Remember, we have a moral obligation to do this ahead of time whether abortion is legally the woman’s choice or a shared decision. I am simply shifting the choice vs life decision to an earlier date in time. The woman still has control of her body, and privacy. If a man asks her views and she refuses to answer, he can refuse to have sex or risk having sex with unknown consequences. The same could work the other way around. -14th ammendment is not violated

Child Custody Laws

I am arguing from a Pro-Choice view and accept the con’s reassurance that the fetus is not human, and not entitled to human rights or laws regarding humans, including children. My argument is for the protection of the human rights, both man and woman. I will continue to argue that the fetus is a unique entity, created and shared jointly by both the man and the woman, and as such is not part of the woman’s body.

As stated above it is known in this day and age that the fetus has unique DNA, separate blood, and obviously a separate body. It is a dependent living being and can’t survive outside the mother’s womb because it is only adapted to the mother’s womb supplying its nutrients and oxygen required to grow, develop, and continue living, not because it is the mother’s body tissue. The two are connected, but different entities, and though a fetus relies on its mother, it is not part of its mother. I agree with the con that the fetus is not its own entity, but a unique one that is shared by both man and woman, with the woman unfortunately carrying the entire physical load by natural order.

I would also like to add that DNA testing was not applicable until the 1980's, which provides a distinct possibility that the information our current laws and historic rulings are based off of may be outdated to some extent, or incomplete compared to modern perspective.

It appears I do not need to modify or clarify anything since Con has skipped rebuttal. I’ve shown both why and how we could make the decision to abort consensual, and fair. Con made a couple claims which I've addressed and determined to be non-applicable or complacent with my initial stance. I expected Con to argue that a fetus is part of its mother's body based on their stance. Though it’s probably not needed, I’ll further elaborate on the subject since I said I would when expecting rebuttal..http://www.advancedfertility.com...Surrogacy has been around a long time, but gestational surrogacy has only been possible since the 1980’s. You may not be familiar with the term, but the process is well known. A couple who cannot reproduce, have their sperm and eggs placed together in a lab. The lab then places the developing embryo into a separate surrogate mother who has consented to the arrangement. Although the embryo will turn into a fetus and be born a baby, it will have nothing in common with the surrogate mother. DNA, blood type, body, etc… are all separate and unique, according to the interaction of genes between the two biological parents, not the surrogate. From this we can determine with certainty that the baby never was part of the mother at any stage in pregnancy. The sight below provides an accurate description of how the process works.https://www.youtube.com....My argument stands.“I do not intend to belittle a woman’s right to do as she chooses with her body, but to show that it is not her body alone that is affected, on the basis that the creation inside of her is not only hers, and was created through voluntary process, with knowledge of the risks and potential consequences.”I’ve shown the creation is not only hers, was created through voluntary process, with knowledge of the risks of consequences. I’ve also shown that it is not only her body that is affected, and undisputedly asserted that the man’s views are of high enough significance to weigh in the decision to abort. .Moral Reasoning“Well, the partners can’t possibly weigh his willingness and need to keep the child, against her unwillingness to keep it, unless they ask each other. It is their responsibility as moral human beings to do this ahead of time, and as such should be legally mandated in some shape or form. After all, if the consequences of sex are not mutually understood, then how could it have ever been consensual in the first place?”

.

Legal reasoning“Remember, we have a moral obligation to do this ahead of time whether abortion is legally the woman’s choice or a shared decision. I am simply shifting the choice vs life decision to an earlier date in time. The woman still has control of her body, and privacy. If a man asks her views and she refuses to answer, he can refuse to have sex or risk having sex with unknown consequences. The same could work the other way around. -14th amendment is not violated” I'd like to stress that this earlier date in time, is the key to my arguement. Without it, my legal reasoning would not coincide with my moral reasoning and the legal arguement of the 9th ammendment would work against me because the man would be able to force the woman to risk bodily harm, which is unconstitutional and in my opinion, immoral. By making the decision before conception and conception related activities, I am making the decision a free one, since the man can't have his religion infringed upon without consent, and the woman can't risk her body without consent. Fortunately for my arguement, Con has not refuted this.

[*Reason for non-removal*] Forfeits, under the current voting standards, are sufficient reason to award conduct. The reporter's disagreement with that standard doesn't make this vote insufficient.
************************************************************************

Anyone who wishes to put my reasoning to the test, feel free to challenge me. I really didn't expect this to be a winning debate, and would like to see information that condemns my reasoning under similar rules. I wouldn't mind a 5 round debate either.